Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh Short Film Forum


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Arr4 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh Short Film Forum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced and non notable, fully promotional article Arr4 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. Enough mainstream coverage - Zakir Hossain Raju, Bangladesh Cinema and National Identity: In Search of the Modern?, Routledge, 2014; Kathryn Bowser, AIVF guide to international film & video festivals (suppl.), Foundation for Independent Video and Film, 1996; Andrew N. Weintraub (ed.), Islam and Popular Culture in Indonesia and Malaysia, Routledge, 2011; Festival of South Asian Documentaries: Film South Asia, 1999-11-30; Cinemaya, Issue 23; Cahiers du cinéma, Issue 498. There also are dozens of newspaper articles on the festival it organizes, and its membership. The article is written poorly, though. A re-write with refs needed. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.


 * Strong Keep Seems to me to be clearly notable. I wonder if nom followed criteria at WP:BEFORE which states "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources" and then "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects", as reliable sources have been found. The fact an article is poorly or promotionally written does not justify deletion, it justifies improvement and re-writing. Also think this is a case of WP:GEOBIAS, the systemic lack of coverage and lack of a desire for coverage for primarily non-English speaking countries. AusLondonder (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.